Election charisma – who has it and who doesn’t?

I coach people to be charismatic when they’re speaking in public. Some of my clients (in my youth theatre company) are as young as five years old – others are senior executives and politicians at the zenith of their professional careers.

Charisma does not come pre-packaged in your DNA. It is a learnt skill and, if mastered, is a powerful asset.

Michael Grinder in his book ‘The Art Of Relationships’ describes charisma as the combination of projecting two qualities: authority and approachability. ?

Any successful political leader must be able to convince the nation’s voters that they have the authority and ability to lead a country. But a charismatic leader will also manage to convince people that, along with their authority, they are also relatable and likeable.

How charismatic are some of the key political leaders in three of the most consequential elections happening today? And what impact might this have on their chance of success?

To find out, I analysed the first five minutes of recent speeches given by Rishi Sunak, Kier Starmer and Nigel Farage in the UK; Joe Biden and Donald Trump in the US; and Emmanuel Macron and Marine Le Pen in France.

I counted the number of instances of body language (gestures, facial expressions, movements) and voice characteristics (pitch, pace, power and pauses) that communicate authority, as well as other body language and voice characteristics that convey approachability. I call these body and voice elements ‘Charisma Indicators’.

Using these Charisma Indicators, I have devised a ‘Charisma Index’ (CI), calculated by dividing the number of authority indicators (the main driver of charisma) by the number of approachability indicators (the vital ingredient, or ‘secret sauce’).

A skilled public speaker will use different amounts of authority and approachability indicators, depending on the nature of the speech they are giving, as well as the make-up and attitude of the audience they are addressing. This means that a CI falling somewhere within a certain middle range tells me that a speaker is displaying both qualities in more or less equal amounts – and that’s a good start.

But charisma also depends on the total number of indicators used. For example, using only one authority indicator and one approachability indicator throughout a five-minute speech may demonstrate both necessary qualities, but the audience won’t actually notice!

The more indicators, therefore, the more the audience pays attention.

Much more interesting, however, is an extreme CI. In other words, a CI that reveals a significant dominance of one quality over the other.?

For example, a politician with a CI below 0.3 tells me they are using three times as many approachability indicators than authority indicators – and suggests a puppy-like desperation to be liked, or a fear of being disliked.

A very high CI on the other hand – perhaps above 3 or 4 – suggests a politician who doesn’t care very much about being liked. And if even higher, that might point to an autocrat; someone like the ancient Roman Emperor Caligula (famous for saying: ‘Let them hate me as long as they fear me’).

Enough explanations! Here are the results, based on the first five minutes of the various speeches that I watched:

So, what do we learn? Or do the figures merely reflect what we already know?

UK GENERAL ELECTION

In the UK, Prime Minister Rishi Sunak’s voice and body language clearly betray a man who is very much on the back foot. National opinion polls bear this out: Sunak himself, as well as his governing Conservative party, are extremely unpopular, blamed for the country’s turmoil over the past 14 years.

As Sunak announces the election outside 10 Downing Street, he displays a CI of just 0.1. He shows just two indicators of authority, versus 18 indicators of approachability. Moreover, his total of just 20 charisma indicators suggests he is perhaps trying to hide how vulnerable he feels by reading out a script in a relatively neutral voice, accompanied by minimal body language signals.

Summary: ‘A scared man facing a hostile crowd, hoping to be liked but fearing he’s about to be beaten up’

The man almost certain to be the UK’s next prime minister, Sir Kier Starmer, appears somewhat more confident, although he is certainly aware from the same opinion polls that he is not particularly popular either – merely the best alternative to the Tories.

In his first major speech of the election campaign, Starmer uses more charisma indicators than Sunak (a total of 29). He is clearly trying to demonstrate through both voice and body language that he believes he is ready to be the next prime minister (19 authority indicators). But aware of the country’s doubts about him, Starmer also tries to project likeability (10 indicators). Starmer’s CI of 1.9 is in the middle range, which is about where it should be. But it is not terribly eye-catching. To be more charismatic, he needs to demonstrate more of both indicators, while keeping them in roughly the same proportion.

Summary: ‘A groom trying to impress his bride by carrying her over the threshold, but very carefully so he doesn’t bang her head on the doorframe’

And then there is Nigel Farage, returning to the political frontline, having sowed chaos and division throughout the country the last time he played in the Westminster sandbox. In the UK, he is a ‘Marmite’ politician: you either love him or loathe him.

But even his worst enemies admit the man has charisma. And his indicators demonstrate that! In just the first five minutes of a speech launching the Reform Party’s election manifesto, Farage uses 41 indicators; more than twice the number of indicators than Sunak, and 40% more than Starmer. Moreover, they are well balanced: 23 for authority and 18 for approachability. His CI of 1.3 is, like Starmer, in the middle range. But, unlike Starmer, his charisma is much more obvious because of the sheer number of indicators he uses.

Summary: ‘An actor in a come-back role, arms wide, glorying in the spotlights’

US PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

To the US, for the ‘Old Folks Throwdown’. While the election proper has not yet officially begun, both President Joe Biden and his political nemesis Donald Trump are on the campaign trail.

All the talk is of the two candidates’ age, with Biden faring worse than Trump despite the scant years between them. So in his speech at the White House Juneteenth concert, Biden comes out swinging. He tries to demonstrate he is still in command (of both the country and his faculties), using 25 authority indicators, versus 6 for approachability. This gives him a CI of 4.2 which, for a different political leader might be nudging a little too close to ‘authoritarian’ for most people’s comfort. But he’s clearly trying to show he still has it in him to lead the free world for the next four years, so maybe we can cut him a little slack.

Summary: ‘Tired and battle-scarred, but summoning one last rattling roar to keep his rival at bay’

Biden’s challenger, the former President Donald Trump, has a style of speaking all of his own. Leaving the actual words aside, Trump uses very few physical charisma indicators. His voice is remarkably monotone, and he doesn’t use either his face or his body language very much to add colour to what he is saying.

In a short speech to Republican lawmakers on Capitol Hill recently, Trump used just 20 charisma indicators, the same number as Rishi Sunak. The stark difference between the two men, however, is that Trump used 19 authority indicators versus just 1 approachability indicator – the complete reverse of Sunak. This gives Trump a CI of 19.0, which is almost off the scale in terms of appearing authoritarian. But authority is precisely what his ‘base’ is looking for from Trump, so this score is perhaps not very surprising.

Summary: ‘A wanna-be Caligula. Be very afraid … for all he cares’

FRENCH PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS

Back in Europe, where French President Emmanuel Macron has just called snap parliamentary elections. The political commentariat believe Macron’s decision was made out of macho bravado; a ‘come on if you think you’re hard enough’ challenge to the far-right National Rally party of Marine Le Pen.

Although neither man would thank me for the comparison, Macron shows quite a few similarities to Nigel Farage across the Channel. Like Farage, Macron is ‘Marmite’ to French voters. And like Farage, when he speaks in public, Macron uses charismatic indicators to the max. In his recent speech on the future of Europe at the Sorbonne, Macron used 38 indicators in the first five minutes (versus Farage’s 41). Of these, 25 were authority indicators and 13 showed his approachability – a very similar ratio to Farage, giving him a CI of 1.9, firmly in the middle of the range. Given Macron’s unpopularity, he might be well advised to dial down his authority indicators and boost his likeability indicators, so moving his CI closer to 1.

Summary: ‘A musician playing all the right notes, but not necessarily in the right order’

And finally, Marine Le Pen, the only woman in this survey. Women have a different challenge to men when it comes to the authority-likeability balance they need to project to voters. Remember Hilary Clinton’s tilt at the US Presidency, when she was widely criticised for projecting too much authority… even when up against a man barely able to convey the slightest hint of approachability?

Rather like Trump, in a speech for the recent European elections, Le Pen appears not to care whether she comes across as extremely authoritative. She uses a total of 37 charisma indicators, of which 34 portray authority. This puts her just behind Farage and Macron in terms of the total indicators she uses in the first five minutes of her speech. It also gives her a CI of 11.3, not quite as high as Trump, but certainly fast approaching the Caligula end of the scale. How will her charismatic authoritarianism play with French voters? I guess we’ll find out soon enough.

Summary: ‘Une mini-Trump’

So what did we learn? In the end, perhaps not so very much that we did not already know before, especially any of us closely following these elections. But that in itself is interesting! These politicians are reflecting - in both their voice and body language indicators - either their relative positions in the polls, or their political beliefs.

If they could project a different image onto their electorates, what might change? If Trump, or Le Pen could project a little more relatability to undecided voters in their countries... or if Sunak could portray more confidence and authority?